Big Sky Cairn

Before I begin my argument, I thought I might offer you a bit of background on myself. I’m a gun owner, a member of the Butte Gun Club and an NRA member. So, needless to say, I count a candidate’s position on second amendment rights among my top five electoral considerations.

Earlier this week, Erik Iverson penned a guest column for the Missoulian about Barack Obama’s stance on gun rights. This editorial prompted a scathing critique by Pete Talbot at 4&20 Blackbirds, who argued that there was very little evidence to suggest that gun owners should be concerned about an Obama Administration.

Talbot states, “Obama has already stated that he’s a defender of the Second Amendment.” But saying that you’re a defender of Second Amendment rights and proving it are two very different things. After all, there must be a reason why the National Rifle Association gave Obama an F rating three times in six years.

The fact that Obama is from Chicago creates some natural skepticism for gun owners because Chicago has some of the nation’s most stringent gun control laws.

Handguns are not legally for sale in the city of Chicago, and have not been since April of 1982. Rifles, shotguns, and ammunition are available, but only to people who possess an Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. It takes up to a month to get this card, which involves a background check. Even if one has a FOID card there is a waiting period for the delivery of a gun. In few places in America is it as difficult to get a firearm legally as in the city of Chicago.

But despite how difficult it is for a law abiding citizen to purchase a firearm, the criminals seem to have no trouble obtaining them. According to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, over the past two decades Chicago’s murder rate has decreased BUT the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm has increased by 20%.

Chicago’s strict gun control laws coupled with a rise in gun crime created an interesting conundrum: What to do with citizens who shoot intruders in self-defense? Chicago’s solution: charge them with a handgun violation.

In 2004, the preceding problem caused the Illinois Senate to take up SB 2165. This bill sought “to provide an affirmative defense for a gun owner if he uses a firearm prohibited by local ordinance in defense of himself or others.”

The bill passed 41-16. Obama’s Vote? He voted against the measure twice.

Obama argued that “the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street.” This doomsday scenario where criminals committing murder on the street were let off by claiming self-defense never came to fruition.

Obama’s decision not to support the rights of a person to protect herself in her home definitely gives me pause. But you can’t judge a man by one vote, so I’ll press on.

During his time in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against several bills supported by proponents of the Second Amendment and for bills that would limit gun rights.

He voted against a bill to lower the age requirement for an FOID card from 21 to 18, ostensibly so that 18-20 year olds who were members of the military could own firearms. He also voted against a bill that would have allowed residents without an FOID card to possess a firearm at a shooting range as long as they were under the direct supervision of an FOID cardholder. And for a bill that limited handgun purchases to one per month.

But perhaps the most disturbing thing that I found regarding Obama’s time in the Illinois Senate, was an article reposted by Volokh Conspiracy.

In 1999, at an anti-gun rally in Chicago, Obama outlined a plan aimed at reducing the trafficking of illegal firearms (okay). As part of this plan, Obama proposed to “make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”

What? A criminal breaks into my home, steals from me and then uses the weapon he stole to commit a violent crime and I’m going to be punished for that. Would I also be held responsible if he stole a knife and stabbed someone? Stole prescription drugs and sold them to a person who OD’ed? Or stole my car and ran over a little old lady?

In that same speech, Obama proposed legislation that would have prevented federally licensed firearm dealers from owning shops within five miles of a school or park. But during that same legislative session, Obama voted present on a bill that would have prevented sex shops from operating within five miles of a school or house of worship.

His explanation for taking a pass, he didn’t want to impose state mandates on local authorities. No local restrictions on pornography, but keep your guns to yourself.

Also at issue is something called the 1996 Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization questionnaire. In it, Obama listed the following views on gun control:

Do you support state legislation?

a. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns? Yes.

b. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of assault weapons? Yes.

c. mandatory waiting periods with background checks for weapons? Yes.

Obama’s camp now claims that this questionnaire was filled out by a former campaign manager and that Obama never even saw it. Then how does he explain his views as listed in the 1998 Illinois State Legislature Political Awareness Test that listed the following:

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

• Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
• Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
• Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

And his responses on the 2003 Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization questionnaire:

35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of
a. handguns?

While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.

b. assault weapons? Yes.

c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons? I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns.

36. Do you support legislation,

a. mandating background checks of purchasers of weapons at gun shows, through the internet and through print advertisements? Yes.

b. increasing penalties for illegal resale of weapons? Yes.

Notice the words “politically practicable” in the first line. It seems to me that the closer Barack Obama got to being the Democratic candidate for Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate the more careful he got with his words. Because while the Illinois 13^th responded to his anti-gun message, voters from other parts of the state needed to be finessed a bit more.

Following his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama maintained his pro-gun control stance. In 2005, he voted to punish gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals by allowing the victims of crime to sue the manufacturers in civil court. This bill, S. 397, enjoyed wide bipartisan support passing both the Senate and the House before being signed into law.

In his post, Talbot offers nothing in the way of real evidence to suggest that Obama supports Second Amendment rights but he does say this (my responses are in bold):

I’ve haven’t seen any platform coming out of Obama’s campaign that would suggest an anti-gun stance (see above). And also keep in mind that there are a few checks and balances in place. We have a Supreme Court that just ruled against the Washington, D.C., gun ban (the Supreme Court heard the case but have not ruled on it yet). There’s also a Congress that is loathe to advance any gun control legislation (the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, which would re-up the expired 1994 assault weapon ban, is still languishing in Congress) (because the President would veto it and they don’t have enough votes to override).

I think the evidence provided above at least suggests (if not proves) that Obama’s views on gun control are out of step with those of Montanans. They show that he is more than willing to propose and support legislation that limits the rights of gun owners while opposing measures (even common sense ones) to protect Second Amendment rights. And this is one gun owner who is not impressed.

I am gun owner. And I support Obama. Wedge issues and scare tactics are for sheep. Namely, the 30 percent of the country that thinks GW has been a great president.

So, because I don’t agree with your assessment I’m employing scare tactics?

Based on empirical evidence, Obama believes in gun control. And while I don’t believe that he is going to come to my house and empty my gun safe if elected, I do not think that he is neutral on this issue. The votes and statements listed above give me pause and are something for gun owners to consider.

I wrote this post as a response to the many posts I have seen before that extol a position on Barack Obama’s gun record but never offer any evidence to back it up. If you have chosen to support Obama anyway, then that is your right and I am sure you have your reasons.

And just for the record, I am not one of those 30%.

Also, I forgot to include something in the original post that is worth mentioning. After Hurricane Katrina, Obama supported a bill that would prevent law enforcement from confiscating firearms like NOPD did in New Orleans. Which was a vote that I supported.

Meant to put it in the original post, just forgot.

Kate, well researched, good job. This is a highly damaging issue for Barry, in this state, before the primary. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops if need be. As a gun owner I plan to inform every one on this issue before June.

Kate,

You are absolutely correct. Cleveland may be a gun owner but he fails to comprehend that his(?) rights are in danger.

Further, I don’t appreciate his insinuation of idiocy: I have a B.A. in political science; a J.D., magna cum laude, and an LL.M. in tax law from New York University School of Law. I have clerked for two federal judges and worked for two AMLAW 200 law firms.

I think I can take Cleveland in any debate. I sure as heck could take Obama. He is avoiding this issue and the media is giving him a pass.

By the way, stock up on ammo. I plan to. He may just get elected.

[…] against legislation that prevented Chicago from prosecuting city residents who used handguns to defend themselves in their own homes arguing that the city had a right to impose these restrictions for public good. But now that the […]